THE END OF POLITICS?
17
come point about the inordinate emphasis on environmental concerns.
He spoke
to
what a lot of people feel - that there's an enormous level
of exaggeration when environmental issues are discussed. I'm not sure
that voters at large view these concerns as seriously as do some of the
candidates. Let me offer another example of this tendency to fixate on
false issues. Here in New York, we have a raging debate on the need for
a civilian board to review complaints against the police force. If a
Martian came to New York from outer space and watched the nightly
news in New York, he'd be convinced that in our criminal justice sys–
tem, one problem dwarfs all others: not violent crime; not rape; not
murder; not assault; but police brutality animated by racism. I don't
think that's a particularly realistic view, and when people see news cov–
erage of this kind, it too creates a level of disaffection.
Finally, there is the general atmosphere of economic uncertainty,
about which
Mr.
Phillips spoke. There is also, inevitably, uncertainty
about America's proper post-Cold War international role. If the debate
is guided by taboos, and if false issues inform the discussion, and if there is
confusion about how to handle real issues, I think disaffection is proba–
bly an inevitability. Thus, Ross Perot. I believe, although I know others
here may disagree with me, that Perot might have done exceedingly well
this year. Not because he bears the seeds of a national third party, but
because he embodies protest. He represents protest against economic un–
certainty, against special interests, and against the mystification of issues.
He doesn't believe, and he convinces people not to believe, that things
are so complicated that they cannot be understood. The attraction of
someone who appears to simplify issues is enormous, since I think some
of our national politicians do not realize to what degree their discussions
take on an "inside baseball" tone. I don't think, for example, that Vice–
President Quayle realizes that when he starts talking about "payor play"
in relation to national health insurance, an enormous number of people
have no idea what he means; there is no reason, moreover, why they
should. Ross Perot suggests that ordinary people can grasp the nature of
America's ills.
I am familiar with the argument that we dwell in a post-ideological
age, that liberalism failed in the 1970s, that conservatism faltered in the
1980s, that Americans don't need a system of thought to deal with their
political predicament. I suppose that some would argue further that Bill
Clinton may be the first post-ideological candidate, uninformed by pro–
found commitment either to the free market and deregulation on the
one hand, and yet not animated by an allegiance to liberal-left ideology
on the other. That may well be true. I think we'll learn more as time
passes. But some ideological quests are still vibrant and valid. The notion
that this was the electoral "year of the woman" turns out to have been
